Ring games vs. SnG tourneys....best for $?

Just curious what the thoughts of the group is here. The rake is generally higher on the SnGs, but the skill level required to win is usually higher as the game changes up as you advance.

I find the SnGs to be a nice change from ring games, but I wonder if I'm just throwing my money away on them with that higher rake. You'd have to be finishing in the top three pretty regularly to make any profit off of these. I know that at least one FTR member has been playing only SnGs this month and doing great.....what are other members thoughts on this?

SnG's have been much more profitable for me. In the 27 tourneys I have in Poker Tracker, I'm up over $500, mostly from $30+3 single table SnG's. This is in less than a month. I have 7 1sts, 4 2nds, and a couple of thirds, so I'm in the money almost 50% of the time in those 27 SnG's. It's a small sample, but I plan to continue testing it.

Generally, I find the SnG's to be pretty easy to get into the money, since there are always a couple of gamblers who go all-in head to head on the first few hands of the tourney. Actually, the last two tourneys I played I busted two guys out early who were calling my made hands with draws. Doubling up early helps you coast into the money.

For me, SnG's prevent me from getting impatient. They generally last less than an hour, so I'm rarely forcing hands early. Later, about the time I might start pressing in a ring game, the table is shorthanded, so you're playing more hands anyway.

I like SnG's because I can rarely make 2x, 3x, or 5x my money in an hour at a ring game, but it's a given if you get into the money in a SnG. It's also easy to lose your buy-in in that amount of time, too, but I've often done that in ring games as well. A word of warning: make sure you have the bankroll. The profits can pile up fast, but being out of the money for four or five tourneys in a row can add up quickly.

I'm not sure. I really need to start keeping track.

Originally Posted by koolmoe

For me, SnG's prevent me from getting impatient. They generally last less than an hour, so I'm rarely forcing hands early. Later, about the time I might start pressing in a ring game, the table is shorthanded, so you're playing more hands anyway.

i couldn't agree with the above statement more. i think profitability of SNG's versus ring games comes down to the player's personality and playing style. if you're a bit of camper (not a rock) but want to play the hands you do play hard, an SNG isn't a bad place to be.

and like koolmoe said, about the time you're getting annoyed that you haven't had anything "playable" in the last 30 hands, you're down to 5 or 6 players and now that KJ or AT looks pretty good.

Originally Posted by fishstick

i couldn't agree with the above statement more. i think profitability of SNG's versus ring games comes down to the player's personality and playing style. if you're a bit of camper (not a rock) but want to play the hands you do play hard, an SNG isn't a bad place to be.

and like koolmoe said, about the time you're getting annoyed that you haven't had anything "playable" in the last 30 hands, you're down to 5 or 6 players and now that KJ or AT looks pretty good.

I agree with fishstick. It all comes down to your style of play.

{This post has been removed}

as i'm really good at riding on other people's coattails - i'll echo rippy's thoughts.

tyson/fnord/xianti - you guys should chime in here - you're all pretty successful ring game players.

Originally Posted by fishstick

as i'm really good at riding on other people's coattails - i'll echo rippy's thoughts.

tyson/fnord/xianti - you guys should chime in here - you're all pretty successful ring game players.

Is there room for 2 on that tail?!

Originally Posted by strangebird

Originally Posted by fishstick

as i'm really good at riding on other people's coattails - i'll echo rippy's thoughts.

tyson/fnord/xianti - you guys should chime in here - you're all pretty successful ring game players.

Is there room for 2 on that tail?!

NO!

i figure when you and/or rippy end up at the WSOP or WPT, you'll need someone to polish your chips and fetch your drinks.

if it gets me out of a conventional job, i'm your guy!

Oh man, I really think MY personality is not appropriate for ring games...
get bored, hmmm, lets try scare people with a $20 bluff with Q high, this will be fun. Hmmm didn't work... second time lucky...

unfortunately this is what I actually did over the weekend. So I'm thinking I will make tournies my thing. So far played 5, 2* 1st, 1* 2nd
and yes I think implicit the stop loss nature of tournies are a good thing for me. Maybe I'll play ring games for kicks on occasion, but I need to build dicipline first. But even with dicipline, I think tournies are the way.

Originally Posted by SecretSquirrel

Oh man, I really think MY personality is not appropriate for ring games...
get bored, hmmm, lets try scare people with a $20 bluff with Q high, this will be fun. Hmmm didn't work... second time lucky...

unfortunately this is what I actually did over the weekend. So I'm thinking I will make tournies my thing. So far played 5, 2* 1st, 1* 2nd
and yes I think implicit the stop loss nature of tournies are a good thing for me. Maybe I'll play ring games for kicks on occasion, but I need to build dicipline first. But even with dicipline, I think tournies are the way.

looking back to when i played more ring games, the times i made money were always like this: hit a good to monster hand in the first half hour, win a big pot, and then quit.

almost all of my winning sessions were less than 30 minutes

To be honest, I think I have only had one winning session in a ring game. And that was a couple days ago with Fnord at my table.


When I first started playing poker I would play rings and loose all the time. Then I actually learned how to play, and jumped right in to tournaments. I haven't looked back since. I really like tournament poker. I'm always after the big prize. It excites me more that low limit rings. When I get the nerve up I'd like to play some high limit rings, but I really cant afford to loose all my cash right now.

I started at the SnG's before I moved to the ring NL game, my progression actually went from Limit ring game, to limit SnG's, then No Limit SnG's, then No Limit ring games...

I like the ring game, I think it's pretty easy to beat, sometimes it's a grind, but most sessions are profitable for me. I like SnG's too, but play them less often, probably cuz I feel I'm stronger at the ring game - I've put most of my energy studying and practicing the ring game and it's been profitable.

Here's the thing, and a lot of you mentioned this - to be successful at the EmpirePoker/PartyPoker ring game, you must have patience and discipline. I'm a rock. I play 3 tables simultaneously to add some element of fun and excitement, because most of the game is folding your hand. With 3 tables, I can sustain a certain level of action that will keep me awake...barely. I take chips from other players' mistakes, and I don't give a whole lot back.

When I start getting impatient, and play more hands hoping for some miracle flops, that's when I quit.

The SnG's are more fun to play, hands down. The ring game is more like a part time job for me, I have to motivate myself to play (I've played a total of 2 hours for the entire month of June so far.)

So the questions are - do you need action and excitement, or can you play the game of patience and discipline? Which game are you relatively better at compared to the competition? Bankroll?

If I could consistently win SnG's, maybe I would switch, but I haven't tried yet. I also need to consistently win month after month to legitimize this website, so I'm nervous about changing what's been working...

As far as what I play. If it is a ring game it's strictly limit. Every NL cash game I've played, I've been killed by a trap. And I mean Killed! I consider myself a decent player. I just get caught at the wrong time. I have a little better luck playing limit. Now what's funny, is that I do really well during sit and go's. I think psychologically, it's because I'm not worried about losing my shirt.

I don't ever really have that large of a bankroll. It's hard to justify to the wife having hundreds in limbo to play poker. Especially with a kid on the way and an addition being built onto the house. So I keep around 50 in the account and wait to double up and withdraw. So far so good!

So I think it'll be S&G's for me here on out.

TT is absolutley right. It depends on what your style is. I prefer ring games while playing multiple tables. It is a grind but not hard to make a profit.

SNG is fun and I used to think it was profitable but I'm starting to change my mind. First, SNG does not count as "raked hands" for purpose of collecting a bonus. Second, as mentioned above, if you miss the money on a couple of events your bankroll can take a huge hit, which my impact your next event. Third, there is far more luck involved in SNG than a ring game.

Barring a bad beat it is relatively easy to make it to last 4-5 players. But then someone is always the short stack (sometimes it is you) and forced to make some all in moves and then it just becomes a game of drawing cards and luck. Don't get me wrong, for $10 I think it is very entertaing to get down to the last couple people and draw cards.

When I first started, I was always in the money at $5-20 SNG. I don't have an accurate count but it felt like I was in the money 2 out of 3 events. Recently, things have gone bad. Maybe only make the mony 50% or less which is not profitable for me. I don't feel like my game has changed, if anything it's gotten better. Just not getting lucky in the end.

Ring games are much more profitable for me. I still play tournaments. I do my fair share of both. I do however play limit holdem so taking a bad beat doesn't take my whole bankroll. I find limit holdem to be very profitable for me.

Originally Posted by SteveO

First, SNG does not count as "raked hands" for purpose of collecting a bonus.

There are sites that count entry fees towards bonuses. PokerStars counts tournament entry fees towards frequent player points, and UltimateBet awards UltimatePoints towards their deposit bonus.

Originally Posted by SteveO

Third, there is far more luck involved in SNG than a ring game.

I'm not sure I really agree with this. Winning tournaments puts a premium on short handed play, when you will be forced to play more marginal hands. Playing shorthanded is a skill in itself.

One could argue that there's a lot more luck involved in sitting around waiting for AA than squeezing the most out of marginal hands when you have to play them.

Originally Posted by SteveO

Barring a bad beat it is relatively easy to make it to last 4-5 players. But then someone is always the short stack (sometimes it is you) and forced to make some all in moves and then it just becomes a game of drawing cards and luck. Don't get me wrong, for $10 I think it is very entertaing to get down to the last couple people and draw cards.

I don't consider making it to the last 4-5 players as the short stack to constitute good play. You could literally post blind and fold and make it there in many 1 table SnG's. I try to be doubled up by the bubble. If you're not the short stack, you have a decided advantage, and it would be bad play, IMO, to consistently finish out of the money in that situation.

Originally Posted by SteveO

When I first started, I was always in the money at $5-20 SNG. I don't have an accurate count but it felt like I was in the money 2 out of 3 events. Recently, things have gone bad. Maybe only make the mony 50% or less which is not profitable for me. I don't feel like my game has changed, if anything it's gotten better. Just not getting lucky in the end.

If you're in the money even close to 50%, you're making money, unless you're finishing third every time. I've finished in the money in about 45%-50% of the tourneys I've played, and I was up over $500 before winning another $237 in a MT SnG last night. A heathy percentage of my tourney finishes are firsts.

I am admittedly skewed on this since I enjoy playing tourneys and have made money playing them. I find ring games tedious, I am about break-even in them. In most of my losing ring game sessions, I've played too long and made some questionable decisions towards the end of the session. Patience is a big hole in my skill set when it comes to poker.

I started a thread about this same topic a while back. At the time I was really against the SNGs because of the luck factor. Since then I've softened my stance a little bit, and I understand how they can be profitable over time.

However, I have to agree with Steve-o and tanaka. I think there is less luck involved in the ring games. I've played a lot of SNGs over the past few weeks, but I think I'll resume my routine of focusing on the ring game and playing the SNGs just for fun.

Now, if I could only figure which type of ring game table to play at..

Originally Posted by koolmoe

Originally Posted by SteveO

Third, there is far more luck involved in SNG than a ring game.

I'm not sure I really agree with this. Winning tournaments puts a premium on short handed play, when you will be forced to play more marginal hands. Playing shorthanded is a skill in itself.

i have really mixed feelings on this particular point - so, let's just say that koolmoe and steveO are definitively wrong, and fishstick is right! (actually, i'm agreeing with both of you)

so, you're down to 5 players, BB is 100 (going up to 200 in a couple of hands) and you're the short stack at 600 because you've had 35 hands of crap cards. you need to make a move while your stack still has a little authority, and you have position.
-you're on the button, 2 players have limped in, and you're holding pocket . if you can fold everyone else, you'll collect 350 (a good amount).
-let's also say that you're positive no one else in the hand has a pocket pair
-you go all-in hoping everyone will fold, but being ok with a caller because you will have a small advantage (~53%) with the made pair over two over cards (to your 7's). you'll have even more of an advantage if you get called with something like Ax where x is smaller than a 7.
-you get your one caller (probably a big stack) who turns over
-there is now 1450 in the pot (minus your 600) which more than doubles your stack and will likely put you in the money.
-the flop is safe, turn is safe, and then a T on the river (isn't it always the river )
-you go out 5th

i guess the point i'm trying to make with the above example is that while there is some luck involved (getting out drawn when you're the favorite, albeit by ~53%), if you still make the "correct odds" play, you will win more often than not.

Well, my SnG experiment so far is not going so hot. Started off great with a 3rd and a 2nd, followed by 7th, 4th (ouch), 6th. Last one REALLY hurt. Doubled up early when my boat beat someone's set, and just didn't get another decent sized pot after that. The killer was that the idiotic big stack calls my all-in on the flop with nothing but overcards which he then catches of course on the turn. It seems like every SnG I'm in there's a maniac or two that busts out early but some other maniac has those other 2 guys chips. He then proceeds to bully the table around with his stack, making life miserable. If I don't win money on one of the next 2 SnGs I play it might be back to the ring games for me.

You can't play 10 SnGs and make the decision "can I beat them". You could easily FITM in the 1st 10 you play and then miss the next 10, that's why when I played them during May I didn't post any results until I had played over 50 at each level (which is still a small sample, but was 150 in total with the levels not being that diff so it does give you some information).

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...&highlight=may

As for the luck factor, there is a certain amount of luck but this is true to all forms of poker, some players continuously FITM 50% of the time playing SnGs, these players are not consistantly lucky, they play a sound SnG strategy.

Of course you are right. I can't make a judgement on a sample size so small. I just pulled off a 1st placer to break my slump, putting me back into the money slightly on SnGs. They certainly seem to be more fun at least, so I'll stick with them for a while longer. My shorthanded play needs work though.

Originally Posted by koolmoe

Originally Posted by SteveO

Third, there is far more luck involved in SNG than a ring game.

I'm not sure I really agree with this. Winning tournaments puts a premium on short handed play, when you will be forced to play more marginal hands. Playing shorthanded is a skill in itself.

Short handed has less variance, but more skill required. Hence, long term a short handed player will make more money (if he can find good games), but will take wilder bankroll swings than a full table player. This is because you have to play more marginal hands to stay ahead of the blinds.

I've beat this horse to death, but I'll hit it one more time. I prefer ring over SnGs because of the added element of table selection and more outcomes over time. I find it very interesting to read about your results and wonder about the bankroll swings SnG players go through. Then again, I've seen the cheap SnG play enough on Party and am able to finish in the money often enough the rare times I play one...

That being said, it'd be a real education to sit with StrangeBird or Rippy for a day and learn how they play SnGs.

Originally Posted by koolmoe

One could argue that there's a lot more luck involved in sitting around waiting for AA than squeezing the most out of marginal hands when you have to play them.

Less variance. However, you need to find a sucker to give you action. Just look at ttanaka (our resident, self-described rock.) I've heard him complain only once about a nasty swing and he brings in a steady, sustainable stream of cash.

Originally Posted by koolmoe

I am admittedly skewed on this since I enjoy playing tourneys and have made money playing them. I find ring games tedious, I am about break-even in them. In most of my losing ring game sessions, I've played too long and made some questionable decisions towards the end of the session. Patience is a big hole in my skill set when it comes to poker.

Try 6 max NL if you ever want to bust into ring games...

In my experience, I have found SnG tournaments to be much more profitable and "easier" in the long run. It is very easy to reach the top 4; I have been able to do this about 80% of the time. But with my bankroll I can only play 2/4 without worrying about going broke. Which means $4/hour. In a 10/1 SnG I am to average the entry fee per tournament. So that mean about $10/hour. Lately I have been averaging $15/hour though.

Originally Posted by Fnord

I've beat this horse to death, but I'll hit it one more time. I prefer ring over SnGs because of the added element of table selection and more outcomes over time.

if i have one gripe about SNG's this is it. By the time you figure out it's a rock garden, or free for all, you're in the middle of it.